tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 18, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
is trial is august 29. i think it will met a lot of people very, very angry. they really believe having the assistant u.s. attorney bringing charges against dan choi in court is going to have a really bad impact on the view of people on the left, that the white house, the administration, t justice department is trying to enact revenge on him for what he did. host: independent, north carolina. caller: good morning. my thing is, they have already tapped into so security -- social security. >> we are leaving the rest of this to go back to the house. members are coming in to consider a bill that would allow churches to merge their pension funds with other funds.
20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be take ever after -- will be taken after 6:30 today. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 33. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 81, h.r. 33, a bill to amend the securities act of 1933, to specify when certain securities issued in connection with churn plans are treated as exempted -- church plans are treated as exempted securities for purposes of that act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. carson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 33, the church plan investment clarification act. i'd like to thank my colleagues on the financial services committee for their support of this legislation. i would also like to thank mr. carson of indiana for managing the bill for the other side of the aisle. h.r. 33, the church plan investment clarification act, is a technical correction bill to amend public law 108-359, the church pension fairness act. it clarifies an exemption in current law to allow church pension plans like secular pension plans to invest in collective trusts. due to a technical error included in the 2004 law, the necessary exemption from the securities act of 1933 was not provided to give church pension plans access to a collection trust. collective trusts allow pension plans to pool their assets, diversify their investments and
share risk and transaction costs with other pension plans, thereby reaping the benefits of collective buying power. again, h.r. 33 clarifies that church pension plans, like secular plans, may invest in collective trusts. on june 22, 2011, the house committee on financial services by voice vote unanimously approved h.r. 33. this bill is similar to the original church pension fairness act bill, h.r. 1533, which the house passed in 2003 by a vote of 397-0. finally the bill is supported by a number of organizations including the church alliance, the general board of pension and health benefits of the united methodist church, the wmca retirement fund, the retirement plan for the men night church of u.s.a. the church in north america, church pension group on behalf
of the church pension fund, an independent agency of the amiss can approximately church, the ministers an missionaries benefit board of the american baptist churches in the u.s.a., the board of pensions of the ejanuary scombrell -- evangelical lutheran church of america. with that i urge my colleagues to support the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. carson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carson: mr. speaker, this bill would permit church pension plans to invest in collective trusts by correcting a technical everier -- error that resulted in the interaction of securities law and the tax code. in 2003, mr. speaker, congress passed legislation that was intended to accomplish this goal. but the final law did not make the necessary corrections to the security act -- securities act of 1933.
as such i.r.s. regulations currently prevent collective trusts from allowing investments by church plans. this bill will make it more cost efficient for a religious organization to manage its pension plans, by allowing the plan to manage its assets through a collective trust mechanism. alongside the assets of other pension plans. church pension plans will no longer have to be managed separately. which creates greater cost to the plan and its participants. the bill, mr. speaker, effectively provides another option for church pension plans. and allows them to be managed much more like other kinds of pension plans and will minimize costs. this bill is supported by the church alliance, a coalition of 37 denominational benefit programs that provide pensions and health benefits to more than one million clergy across this
country, lay workers and their family members. mr. speaker, i urge adoption of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i -- mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and -- does the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded. mrs. biggert: all right. then in that case i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 33 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mrs. biggert: mr. speaker. on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> at 5:30 eastern live on c- span, we will get an update on the most recent developments in the investigation on a phone hacking by british journalists and the upcoming british committee hearing with rupert murdoch, his son james, and reb ekah brooks. bbc newsnight tell us tell they are covering the story. >> tonight, robert mcdowell on the fcc's action to begin cracking down on unauthorized service charges to cell phone bills. that is tonight on "de communicators -- "the
communicators." the nuclear regulatory agency officially make recommendations within 90 days. the industry would have five years for any new regulations to come from the process. >> we are honored to be here today, speaking at this venerable institution. the national press club is a venue like no other. it has been at the center of washington news. as i was preparing for this, in my staff did a little investigation, they understood the historic emblem was that of an owl. i will not claim wisdom and i will let you judge my awareness, but i can relate to the long nights spent sleepless on the job. as chairman of the new tillage
-- the nuclear regulatory commission, one of the best aspects of my job is having the opportunity to lead a staff of nearly 4000 talented public servants. we hear from all sides and all perspectives about both our own safety record, and that of the industry we regulate. we know we can always do better and we always strive to do better. but i have absolute confidence and i believe the american people should as well in the experience, expertise, and professionalism of staff. as you heard, michelle katz has a degree in nuclear engineering and has worked for the nrc for 2
years. as a resident inspector, she is the eyes and ears of the nrc. she and her colleagues are the front-line staff to conduct the inspections ordered by the agency and the days following the nuclear accident in japan. also with me, originally from the d.c. area, with a degree in fire protection in maryland. he has worked on improving protection at nuclear plants all across the country for the past five years. this is a very important and longstanding issue for the agency. finally, jennifer euell has been with the agency for 18 years. right now, she helps make decisions on where the nrc
spends its research money. most recently, she was part of a 24/7 operating center team during the japanese crisis. because of her expertise, she was asked to serve on the international atomic energy agency fact-finding message to japan. -- mission to japan. i am sure the recent events in japan and there implications for how we approach it nuclear safety and in this country are foremost in everyone's mind. since these events began to unfold four months ago, the nrc has taken immediate actions to ensure the safety of the nation's nuclear power plants. the commission has undertaken a systematic and methodical review
of the nuclear safety program. this has both short and long term components, and it has moved forward with a strong sense of urgency, given the significant safety issues under investigation. the commission established a task force made up of some of the agency's most experienced and expert staff. all together with the six members on this task force, they represent more than 135 years of regulatory experience. the task force has had full access to all the staff of the nrc headquarters and ultimately, our nrc will continue to work with japan to assist the japanese government as they respond to the situation there. the task force reached out to the federal emergency management agency. as well as to the institute for nuclear power operations in order to understand the industry
response to the situation in japan. additionally, the task force received information from stakeholders and monitored international efforts and reports by the international atomic agency and other organizations. last week, this task force completed its 90-day grace, part of the short-term review assigned to them, and submitted its recommendations to the commission for its consideration. in line with the nrc's commitment to transparency and openness, the commission has made its report available to the public. the task force will also formally present its report tamara. i want to thank the members of the task force for there tremendous work. it is clear there focus is foremost on nuclear safety. in particular, i want to acknowledge charlie miller.
we are doing our best to talk him out of retirement. [laughter] this task force developed a set of 12 recommendations, many with short and long term elements, and they were recommendations needed to strengthen nuclear safety in this country. the task force did not find any imminent risk to public health and safety and the continued operation of the nation's power plant. the problem is the uncontrolled radiation releases at fukushima is unacceptable. this is the same reaction in seen as a attended meetings throughout the world. by simply, many of us to work in this build up this type of accident could and would not happen again. so, the challenge for the congress, the industry, the
public, and the agency is how to better ensure an accident like the one in japan will not happen in the united states. but like a doctor socratic both, we must ensure we do that -- like a dr.'s to pratique -- wetor's hippocratic oath, must ensure what we does does not cause harm. our task force has an excellent starting point. over the next 90 days, just like the task force took 90 days to complete there review, i call on the commission to do its job, to systematically and methodically review these recommendations in the public and transparent way. regardless of your view on the task force recommendations, this is a step i think we can all agree on.
this is by no means the first time we've contemplated significant changes to our approach to navicular safety. our approach as necessarily a bald as new scientific information -- evolved as new scientific information have advanced to give us better understanding of technology and its risk. although this process is primarily unfolded incrementally, the history of nuclear power has also been punctuated by significant evidence -- events that have attended our understanding of nuclear security. in 1975, the browns ferry fire occurred at a nuclear power plants. commission we continue to work on to this day. and -- in 1979, the three mile accident lettuce to rethink --
led us to rethink our approach is to safety, including an emphasis on control rooms and how people in those environments could deal with a challenging situation like the accident at three mile island. and of course the september 11, 2001 terrorist attack was another watershed event that caused us to rethink how we approach to security in this country. these events led to dramatic changes in how the nrc regulates and how the country operates, changes that remain with us to this day. it is clear that the accident at the fukushima 80 site is just another such event -- the fukushima daiichi site is just another such event.
these task force recommendations are too extensive for me to fully discuss today. they range from earthquakes, flooding, spent fuels, emergency preparedness. include proposed requirements for nuclear power plants, to evaluate and of greater seismic protection, to strengthen there ability to deal with prolonged loss of power. and ultimately to develop an emergency plan that specifically contemplates the possibility of events involving multiple reactors. the task force emphasizes that effective nrc action is essential and a voluntary industry initiatives are no substitute for strong up oversight. an addition to these recommendations, the task force calls for a redefinition of adequate protection in light of
what we have learned from fukushima. adequate protection is likely not a familiar term. all smelly, are statutory responsibility is for safety. -- ultimately, our statutory responsibility is for safety. the nrc must require this of power plants in order for them to operate. there has been occasion to revisit this standard and redefine what state the ultimately means. we did so after september 11. now taskforce, established by the commission, believes we should do so again. the insight that fukushima has provided into rare catastrophic events. while this redefinition is one for the commission to ultimately make, it is clear that
fukushima was an unacceptable accident, and we need to take strong steps to make sure that type of accident does not happen in the united states. as we consider and respond to these recommendations, the commission is committed to involving our stakeholders in this process. never forget that nuclear read the -- nuclear regulation is a public business and we have the responsibility to conduct our work openly and transparently. since my very first speech since joining the commission seven years ago, i have emphasized that openness and transparency are indispensable for effective decision making. in order to move forward openly and transparently, i propose a road map for taking action on this report. the centerpiece of this proposal is a series of public commission meetings with the staff and the stakeholders who will doubtless
have opinions. in the lead up to these meetings, there'll be an opportunity for stakeholders to provide feedback and for nrc to provide additional information to the commission about there thoughts on the recommendations. i believe this approach will ensure that the commission benefits from the information our stakeholders bring to the table. we're in a strong position today to move forward quickly and effectively but because the -- quickly and effectively because the task force did an outstanding job. the american public should be grateful and thankful for the work these outstanding members have done. it is time for my commission colleagues and me to do our part. we have the responsibility to the american people to diligently and expeditiously
review these recommendations and make the best decisions to ensure the continued safety of the public. in light of the task force work, i see no reason why the commission cannot provide clear direction on each of these recommendations in less than 90 days. that is the time the commission gave the task force to do its job, and i believe that is more than enough time for the commission to outline a clear path forward. i do not think that the agency will be able to take final action on all these matters. since certain of the recommendations are requirements or changes to our regulations, that in and of themselves may take months or years to develop, but i believe we have enough information at this time to take the necessary interim steps on issues identified in the task force to allow for full and meaningful participation by the
public. it is up to all of us to think of new ways to do things differently. that should not be unexpected since these are not normal times for the nrc. none of us want to make rushed decisions. must move forward with the urgency called for by the safety issue is. -- by the safety issues. i am committed to ensuring the commission has all the information it needs to take decisive action and response. as i alluded to in my earlier remarks, this is by no means the first time we have undertaken a significant be a violation of what nuclear safety requires. nearly a decade ago, we embarked on an effort to overhaul and strengthen the nation's nuclear plants in the aftermath of the
september 11 attacks. will move forward, it has taken -- while we move forward, it has taken me nrc -- the nrc 10 years to implement. this will take a whole lot of hard work, strong and decisive leadership, and an even stronger requirements make safety of priority. have no other choice in this regard. i think the task force has provided an excellent start to this effort, and you're more than up to the task of seen the suffered through. ultimately this is not a challenge for me or the members of the commission or the nuclear
industry. is a challenge for all of us as we continue to make sure that nuclear power can be used safety -- safely and securely. is ultimately a nuclear safety imperative. -- the american people need everyone involved with nuclear safety to do there part. i think you for your -- i thank you for your attention. >> and we will have more live house coverage at 6:30 eastern when members return for votes. tomorrow, a republican plan that ties raising the debt ceiling to passing a balanced budget amendment. right now, the house rules committee is meeting to consider
what if any will be allowed in the republican plan. you can see this live on c-span 3. >> have you ever visited the library of congress? this is your chance to tour the world's largest library. we will take you into the great hall and explore the main reading room. you'll find special collections including a regional book from thomas jefferson's personal collection and you will see how the library is using modern technology. join us for the library of con -- congress. >> tonight, robert mcdowell on the fcc actions this week to begin cracking down on unauthorized service charges on
consumers' phone bills. that is tonight and "the communicators." >> you are watching c-span, bringing new politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal." watch live coverage of the house. also supreme court oral argument. on sunday, newsmakers and prime minister's questions. it is all searchable at our video library. a public service greeted by america's cable companies.
>> john yates presented -- resign today amid the investigation into phone hacking by british journalist. he said recently he regrets his decision. "bbcming, we will see how a newsnight" is covering the investigation ahead of the parliament hearing with rupert murdoch, his son james, and rebekah brooks.
the biggest casualty of the phone hacking scandal. john yates follows the example of his boss and quits more in anchor then onions are a. >> it is malicious gossip published about me. >> another bizarre twist. a man found dead. david cameron cuts short his trade trip to africa. >> the issue is that this will be stopped under my watch. and determined to get to the bottom of it. >> and more on the hearings with rupert murdoch tamara. also, the united states -- we have no -- united states -- [unintelligible] good evening.
is britain's police force incompetent or corrupt or both? public confidence in the police is said to be rocky after two high-profile resignations. the police said manning a botched investigation -- admitting a botched investigation, and now an admission that they were working at "news of the world" at the same time. so how far can we trust the yard? >> in this wine bar, just a stunt drove from scotland yard. they were on drinking terms. the latest revelations in this fast-moving story showed that the connection went deeper than s. -- than this.
journalists always are looking for information. that is part of the job. in told by a former senior policemen, that and in this bar in the west and, these to be regular meetings between "news of the world" journalists and the head of the media to discuss fraud. i am told that the relationship was incredibly close. former commissioner met with "news of the world" 14 times in two years. >> was there any element of the relationship between the police and "news of the world" that is impeded them from pursuing the fund had been inquiry? that is the question. >> the man who decided not to reopen the hacking inquiry in
2009 has come under pressure to resign. earlier today, he was threatened with suspension, so he jumped. >> we in the police service are truly accountable. those of us to take on the most difficult jobs have to stand up and be counted when things go wrong. however, when we get things wrong, we pay for it. as i have said very recently, it is a matter of great personal regret that those potentially affected were not dealt with appropriately. sadly, there continues to be a huge amount of inaccurate, on occasion downright malicious gossip published about me personally. >> once he decided without going through the evidence there was no case to run, the writing was on the wall and there was no way back.
you cannot put someone in charge with that sort of attitude. i think it is a shame. he did good work. there's no question he was an outstanding officer. but he made a mistake and he has to pay the price. >> this is the former deputy editor of "news of the world" it was arrested last week. he was employed as a media consultant last year. he worked closely with police commissioner john yates. it has emerged that paul stevenson, the former met commissioner, accepted thousands of palin of free hospitality. the commission denied any and propriety. -- impropriety. that was not enough to save them. the commissioner resigned four hours ago. >> what was the commissioner of the police accepting high level,
expensive gifts? all somali, the police should be putting themselves out of reach of any such allegation or inference. a think it was incredibly naive. >> what i find odd is they have yet to find any outside people with publicity when the hat camp. it almost beggars belief that he would need additional support. >> a slew of new inquiries have followed. questions of whether the media has had undue influence over the police, and there will be a police commission report into the affair. the iccp will examine the behavior of stephenson. involvement in an
appropriately securing employment for the daughter of our friend. and the investigation of two other individuals and there part in any hacking investigation. the mayor of london says the resignations were inevitable. >> in both cases, we have to the questions about the relationship between the met and the "news of the world" likely have been distracted for the officers. >> for some inside the organization and others to have recently left, this is an opportunity to break ties with the rupert murdoch press. there is anger.
>> i am sure there are good and honest officers that wanted to see this cleared out and wanted to get rid of those people who they thought were perhaps too close to the press. >> it seems to the police that embarrassing facts about there relationship with "news of the world" are emerging daily. tonight, confirmation that an senior employee was given access to sensitive material. with daily renovations -- -- there are daily revelations like this. >> thank you. i am joined by the former chief of staff of the current mayor of london, boris johnson. chris, this is catastrophic for
the met, is it not? to lose senior officers? >> is certainly is. at a time when the met is under a lot of pressure. it is a tragedy. and you can hear the mayor actually saying, there is nothing against them anyway. if this seems rather sad. it is a toxic situation to deal with. that is the basic problem, i think. >> given that it is very toxic and we do not know where it ends actually, is there any reason for the public to have full confidence in the metropolitan police tonight? >> there are an additional 30,000, 40,000 officers in the met. i think the public know that the vast majority of officers are getting on with there job. indeed, when you look at some of
the things they're being in pledged and talked up -- alleged and talked up, when you see them balanced against what was happening and the rest of the minot, it may not look as it does now. that could be exceedingly frustrating for the met. >> when you were the mayor of london, why did you not see this coming? >> there was no evidence of it. >> the closeness between met police officers and the media go way back to when you were mayor, wasn't it? >> action, it looks like it was going back for decades. it was not raised. no one from the bbc or anyone else and said, there is more to this than meets the high.
in 2007, they went to prison. no one came to me and said, oh, we think there is much more to this. >> what is your relationship with news international? you write columns. nothing wrong with that. you did do it. you also spent 350,000 pounds of money on the puerto rico company run up by the man who is married to elizabeth murdock? >> they had a very good bid. >> [unintelligible] >> rupert murdoch fired the four as of his papers in britain to make certain they were endorsing burress johnson. i think i must be doing something right if he felt he had to intervene to oppose my trust -- --
>> you had to use someone connected to murdoch? >> we had 31,000 pounds invested from china. >> this fellow it was working before it de "news of the world" as a translator and so on and so on. how far do we go? >> there will be various inquiries. what is clear, there is a culture. it was not just a few bad apples to mean bad things. it is worrying. people in the were good people and good police officers thought it was normal to have lunch with a journalist. that was wrong. and also we have to root out the whole thing. >> y than boris johnson?
-- why then forced johnson? there was a degree of political complacency in london, is in there? >> frankly, we were all in the business of trying to win the approval of various new faces and journalists and proprietor's. yes, the prime minister has said we are all at fault here. boris is not excluded from the. he is not the only one. >> do you think there will have to be more resignations from the met? these two were at the top of the tree, whereas a lot people were feeding them information that turned out to be rubbish. >> i have not heard enough about that. there is not been a proper investigation. that is what worries seem more than anything. hearing some of the nonsense that is being spoken, for example you are final -- you are
constantly under the media spotlight. you are been targeted. you are the target of the international press. it is normal for you to want the best strategic advice he can get, and what better than an editor from a big title? so, you were going to have to involve yourself at the top of the media world. otherwise, he will not survive. it has been proven you will not survive because you have to play the game and you have to deal in onion information, which means that. it is a bell making information, providing information. >> if you have someone who is working for you, who works for an organization as under
investigation, surely you must smell a rat? the police officers did not do anything wrong. >> if we knew when the investigation was done, we might have the answers to that. the police actually do take action. one of the tactics is to stop complaining. the constables on the street have complaints. they investigated colby and factually. that is what has happened in this case. metropolitan police should have investigated at. -- investigated it. if they want to investigate this and be accepted as truthful and
honest investigators, they have to resign. the atmosphere is no one gives them a chance to do this. >> you were involved in the running of london. might come to regret this. you may sleep more easily tonight knowing two people tasked with the security of the olympic games are gone from the night? >> i thought he was a remarkable man and one hill automatically inspires confidence. he reached a conclusion that he could no longer command public confidence and this thing ran and ran. it is probably one of the most challenging years for the london security. >> they are very talented officers. you have got a deputy
commissioner they're embedded in on this. i think these two people had to get a. name went because -- they went because they failed to do it. if it is simply they were not even in accepting there was nothing in this, i think they -- but the prime minister and the mayor of london who was warned a year ago, they state. >> we will be there. thank you. now the myriad of the elements for this story of a complication of the death of the "news of the world" journalist who followed the allegations of the attacking. police say the circumstances were not suspicious. >> to was very successful at his job until he was dismissed
sometime ago. all like to speak of them as a talented showbiz reporter. he is very good at the job. near not confirm his identity, but it is being widely reported as being this journalist and in northwest london. the circumstances are said to be unexplained, not necessarily suspicious. what we do know, of course, he did, out some weeks ago and talk about the endemic culture of phone hacking. >> it is endemic. it happened. >> when you say it was endemic, phone hacking? that was endemic? is that what you are saying? >> yes, yes. people are scared, all right? so, if you have got to get a
story, you have to get that from whatever means. >> one of his other colleagues was not driscoll, one of the other few people to speak about phone hacking openly. the problem with some "news of the world" journalist speaking openly is that some of them have signed confidentiality agreements. some of them do not want to speak. it is remarkable that matt fiscal spoke of his experiences, too. >> we were both approached by the "new york times" to speak about it. we had been discredited. all we wanted to do was tell the truth. we were one of only a handful of people who have left the paper
to have not signed confidentiality agreements for the paper. we were one of the few people who could tell the truth. >> especially given that his time at the paper coincided with the communications director for the prime minister -- i think this evidence could have been telling. he says it is a widespread culture of hacking at "news of the world." >> thank you very much. there is a new joke going around westminster tonight. what is the difference between god and david cameron? god is everywhere. david cameron is everywhere except the house of commons. some in westminster were far from impressed or even beginning to wonder if the crisis could
engulf his premiership. >> spot the difference. two of the mightiest men in britain. on the right, the met's chief stephenson , who quit last night after thursday's arrest of neale walls of -- meal wallace. on the left, david cameron, still prime minister after andy coulson was arrested the week before. a similarity hinted that but it sir paul in his resignation statement. mr. cameron tried to tackle the. >> i would say that the situation in the metropolitan police service is quite different to the situation in government, not least because of the issues that the metropolitan police are looking at and have a
direct bearing on public confidence into the police inquiry coming into the "news of the world," and into the government. for my part, i would say we've taken very decisive action. >> but ed miller band -- ed milliband was determined to play at the association. >> stephenson has resigned, but the prime minister has not even apologize for the hiring themr. coulson. we need leadership to get to the truth of what happened. the prime minister has been hamstrung by the decisions made and his refusal to face up to them. >> boris johnson said stephenson's resignation was
what was called for. he was now that helpful to his friend david cameron. >> if it was the right call for stephenson to resign over the employment of a pr man, should david cameron not be resigning over the scandal? >> i am not here to discuss government implements -- appointments. it is a very clear read in this matter. i am not aware that no. 10 downing street is in charge of the investigation. >> hang on. of course he is in charge of the. he has just called for an inquiry. >> i know the point you were trying to make. is not one i find relevant. -- it is not one i find relevant. >> it was nick clegg of all
people, the man who warned cameron about coulson, who jumped to the prime minister's defense. >> keep this in perspective. the issue about the police is it people's fear that a criminal investigation may have been compromised in some place and that is the focus of attention today. thanks. >> then when the home secretary told mp she was launching three new inquiries, labour resumed its attack. >> the judgment of the met has been called into serious question, but so has the judgment of the prime minister by appointing andy coulson. people will look at this and think it is one rule for the police and one for the prime minister. >> but theresa may went on the
offensive. >> of course there is a difference between the mets and the government. the mets were investigating wrongdoing at the "news of the world." >> been a classic piece -- then a classic piece. >> people are resigning. people are being arrested all over the place. and yet only one place remains intact. on millionaires' row. when is he going to do the decent thing and resign? >> but it wasn't just a labour mp's sensing blood. >> what is striking is the extent to which tory and labour aboutas been talking
cameron's future. of course, there is always been a substantial chunk of tory mp's who never liked david cameron. but now they can agree on issues like crime and immigration and a starting to exploit this comparison to vladimir putin. >> [unintelligible] >> david cameron, who met is meant to to -- desmnd tutu today, is returning from africa early. >> michael crick there.
i am joined by my two guest. there is something wrong, isn't there? >> he has made it clear he received assurances, which he expected. the same assurances gave to a scottish court. the scottish court accepted the. >> they were not in no. 10. >> to receive those assurances. is those deterrences turnout to have been lies, then he will put his hand up -- if those assurances turned out to have been allies, then he will put his hand at. all this frothy talk about you should look into this -- there is no basis in fact. >> 3:00 in the morning. the phone rings at downing street. it is a national crisis. someone who displayed niavete in
your word -- >> i am not accusing him of that. >> the accusation has been leveled. >> the scottish court was guilty of the same niavete. the labor party, who hosted, wind, and dined the murdoch's for decades were guilty as well. we have all failed as politicians to understand the nature of the relationship. >> we are not all in this together. it was not a scottish court that was supposed to be running the country. it was not a scottish court that hired and nicholson. he did not have to -- >> but it was the labor prime minister who invited wrapper burke's for a slumber party after "news of the world" journalists had been convicted
of phone hacking. don't come off high and mighty on us. don't get off on to your little moral high court. the labor party was up to its neck in this. we are not claiming we are better or without sin, but the labor party is claiming it is. >> what was about to happen is we had days at david camerons government wading through rupert murdoch's bid for the world, the sun, and the times, but also the whole bskyb, and camera saying he is determined to get to the bottom of this. he went all the way to south africa in order not to answer questions, and he has got some questions to answer. the thing is that when you get a crisis, the metropolitan takes it very serious, whole issues raised about the press, and you do expect leadership from the prime minister, and he will not acknowledge his error because he
will not answer questions -- >> are you saying that because it is not resigning matter for the police a partner, the calls and it is a resigning matter for the prime minister? >> we are not calling for the prime minister to resign. it is not the labor party's decision to call on the prime minister to resign. we're calling on him to answer questions. are we really expected to believe -- >> paul stevenson was expected to resign over what he supposedly did. the logic is presumably -- your logic -- is that he should go. >> we're calling on him to answer questions. >> but you are calling a very drastic over in a statement about race. >> he did not have to employ
coulson. he did. that was an error in judgment. we're calling on him to acknowledge that. no one can see david cameron as prime minister leading the country through this difficult crisis if he will not acknowledge his own error in judgment. no more questions. you had your say. another question he will not answer. he was having dinner right in this crisis at the house of rebecca books. are really to believe he did not discuss the deal? he will not answer that question. >> but his judgment is going to south africa and nigeria while this was going on. but can you tell me, why is the judgment call, send it to the president of south africa, an extremely important ally and trading partner, and the president of nigeria that because a bit little local difficulty, which they have dealt with by announcing a full judicial inquiry with wide- ranging power supported by every part of the house, when this
deal that was threatening has already been dropped by news corp. -- what would have been the credibility attached to a decision -- what will people around the world expect -- >> why is he coming back? >> because he has seen the south african prime minister. because it is right and proper for parliament to have a final statement on this, on the whole scandal. it does not stop just because there is an inquiry into corruption. he is right to go ahead and do those things. >> he has come back that there will be a call on wednesday for questions to be answered, and the truth is that david cameron is so boxed in by his wrong judgment and his involvement with bskyb -- >> [unintelligible] >> we have there been any wrongdoings when you were in
court in brown's government? -- any wrong judgments when you were in gordon brown's government? >> there is a crisis and he is not able to show the leadership that the prime minister should, but at least we have had remarkable leadership from miller brand -- millebrand. kamen has followed in his way, and he has broken through this, and hopefully, there will be a reasonable settlement to all of this. but i have never seen a prime minister looking more slippery. all we're saying is he's got questions to answer. >> maybe he's got very good answers. >> everybody is tired of westminster. [unintelligible] >> we let harry give her piece.
now let me have my. she is pumping air into this. the prime minister had announced a judicial inquiry -- >> let him finish, please. >> announced a judicial inquiry under a very senior judge. the judicial inquiry have the support of all members of the parliament. the prime minister called for news corp. to withdraw the bid. that has been withdrawn. he left for south africa before paul stevenson resigned. he has come back for one day extra so that parliament gets a chance to ask him questions. but that is not a prime minister balancing his many responsibilities -- let's be clear -- in the band has nothing to do. the prime minister has a lot else to do. he has to deal with the fact that gas prices went up by 18%
last week. he has to deal with the fact that the eurozone might be about to break up. >> the most robust supporter of him today -- >> i tried to compete with the clegg. memo where are all the other conservative capitalist? are they in south africa, too? some of your own back benches are rumbling about. >> he can always find the bad, the mad, and the usual suspects to rumble off on any subject. there is no rumbling in the party about anything other than the fact that labor is cooking this up to try to make a big bang. >> it is no-goodnik shouting at me about the point. the point is a million-dollar's
phone was tapped. -- it is no point -- no good nick shouting at me. it is important that a murder victim's phone was tapped. it was important that there was an investigation that did not get to the bottom of it. it is important that we lost in metropolitan commissioner. it is important that people within days of murder -- and it is important the prime minister ask questions. >> all of this happened. there's a judicial inquiry and the prime minister making a statement on wednesday. what more do you want? >> thank you very much for now. last month, the obama administration said it had taken steps to ensure the civilians in pakistan would not be hit by unmanned drones the united states have been using against the taliban and outside appear tonight, we have new evidence that this confidence is simply wrong. part of this was the chill in relations between pakistan and washington. >> it has always been a secret
war, if you like, conducted by the cia in pakistan using these unmanned aircraft. if one looks at the history of it, one could see howard rounds up, but there are questions in the wake of the raid. the vast majority have been carried out in so-called tribal areas on the border with afghanistan there. over the years, the number has gone up steadily. the first few years of the strike 2004 to 2007, just a handful, and we see it going up. 2010, under the obama administration, really rising. but a policy never fully publicly articulated. 118 strikes last year. 45 so far this year. pakistanis said a couple of months ago that they wanted to stop here they ordered the cia out of an air base in pakistan were some of the raids have been launched. by my reckoning, there have been a dozen sense, so have these been done like the big law the
raid itself against the will of the pakistan government? we do not know for sure, but we do know that our defensive about it, and last month, for example, john brennan tried to allay concerns and talked about new procedure and said that in the past year there have not been a single collateral death because of the exceptional efficiency and provision -- decision of the capabilities they been able to develop. they say no one has been killed. >> so have they delivered on that envisioned? >> this is where the new research comes in here it has been done by the bureau of investigative journalism, which is a non-profit organization of journalists that dig into this kind of thing. they had done some work on strikes carried out since august 23, 2010, which is when they did
a particular strike when the u.s. changes its policy. they say that by their reckoning, 45 people, civilians who were not militants or key figures in the leadership of al qaeda with the taliban, were killed during that time. looking at a for the theme, they would estimate another 60 and involve people were killed, making it well over 100 casualties. the u.s. has responded to the bureau of investigative journalism, saying that these are wildly off, these figures. they have rejected them, but this is the response of the bureau to that. >> we have feedback from the intelligence community saying, even having seen the summary findings, they stand by the view that absolutely no civilians have been killed in pakistan since august 23 last year, yet we have named individuals, children, photographic evidence here we have sent researchers into the field to look at this.
we followed it up, and we cannot understand why they are categorically say no civilian deaths when we have evidence that can say. i am in a sense, there is quite a lot of reporting from within the tribal areas. this was the 23rd of august last year that killed civilians, so that prompted the change in policy, but there were other photographs, such as a young boy killed in a strike two months after that scene. the bureau's position on this is that they have research quite deeply, said researchers into the tribal areas, family background of all the civilians they say were killed. very sensitive matter. it becomes all the more so now that relations between pakistan
and the u.s. have become so fraught and tangled. >> very interesting. thank you very much. back to our main story tonight, tickets to tomorrows a counter to see rupert murdoch, james murdoch, and the committee, he might have more tickets than they let the games, but what will the committee want to know? days do not get much bigger for committee members then tomorrow, do they? >> no, it is a rather dramatic it. it is like one of those days where you have the streak of back-to-back football matches on television. we saw a bit after 12:00 with paul stevenson resigning last night at the home affairs committee. then at all switches to the culture committee, starting off with a double header. rupert murdoch, his son, followed by rebecca birks. it is going to be the most interesting moment.
strongest thing is that in 42 years, all the newspapers in this country, rupert murdoch's has never answered questions from our economy select committee. the committee is going to meet and decide thinking being that if they do that, then -- and the witnesses do not tell the truth or tell lies, they could be prosecuted for perjury through the courts. back >> what sort of questions do you think they will try to get to? >> it is going to be difficult with the murdoch's because they've only got them there for
an hour. least that is the schedule. but it boils down to the age-old watergate question, you will recall. at what point did they realize that the hacking scandal extended well beyond the single row reporter. news international had a settlement with gordon taylor, were that they were paid 750 million pounds in compensation and legal costs over their phone hacking. why were huge sums paid, and in particular, when james murdoch admitted the other day that he had decreed as pets, what was it? he said he had done those with
the full facts. that is clearly one of the many fascinating areas. >> great questions. we look forward to the answers tomorrow. on the right hand side, gossip, as he puts it, and down below, police exam and a laptop found dumped near brookses flat. the computer was found near the riverside home. the telegraph has found dead, the phone hacking whistle-blower with the picture there, and also david cameron, who, as we said, is on his way back from his african trip.
the times says the same story, having witnessed dead. a slightly different take. they have murdered -- they have james and rupert murdoch on the front page. they said the murdered hakluyt -- hacking whistle-blower found dead. e-mail also has hacking whistle- blower found dead, and the ft has gold reaches thousand-pound barrier. that is all from us tonight. we will be back tomorrow with, among all the things, all the news at the committee hearing. good night.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow morning, news corp. chairman and ceo rupert murdoch will appear before a british parliamentary committee. is expected to answer questions about the phone tapping by "news of the world" and other news corp. companies. his son, chairman and chief executive of news corp. international and former "news of the world" editor rebecca books are also expected to appear, and we will bring that to you live tuesday morning on our companion network, c-span3. president obama nominated richard cordray to head the consumer financial protection bureau to this week.
the nominee has to be approved by the senate, were 44 senators, including minority leader mitch mcconnell, has said they will oppose any nominee without structural and funding changes to the agency. >> good afternoon, everybody. it has been almost three years since the financial crisis pull the economy into a deep recession and millions of families are still hurting because of it. trying to get by on one income instead of two, on fewer shifts at the plant or at the hospital, cutting expenses, giving up on a family night out so there is money for groceries, and for a lot of families, things were tough even before the recession. so we've got to get the economy growing faster and make sure
that small businesses can hire again. so that an entrepreneur out there can sell a new product, so that the middle-class is getting stronger again, and so folks feel confident in their futures and their children's futures, and that is why we cannot let politics stand in the way of doing the right thing in washington. we cannot stand in the way when it comes to doing the right thing on deficits, and that is why i want to take steps like making sure payroll taxes for middle-class families do not go back up next year. that is why it is so important we have the problems that led us into the recession in the first place. one of the biggest problems was that the tables were tilted against ordinary people. when you get a home loan, it came with pages of fine print. when you got a credit card, it was as if the contract was written in another language. these kinds of things open the door to unscrupulous practices. loans with hidden fees and terms
that meant your rate could double overnight. it led to people getting mortgages they could not afford, and it but honest businesses at a disadvantage, and encouraged dangerously risky behavior on wall street, which dragged the economy into the mess we are still trying to clean up. that is why we passed financial reform a year ago. it was a common sense law that did three things. first, it may taxpayer-funded bailout illegal. so taxpayers do not have to foot the bill if a big bank goes under. second, it says you cannot take the same kind of reckless risks that led to the crisis to wall street firms. third, it put in place the strongest consumer protection in history. to make sure the protection works so ordinary people were dealt with fairly so they could make informed decisions about their finances, we did not just
change the law -- we changed the way the government did business. for years, the job of protecting consumers was divided up in a lot of different agencies. if you had a problem with a mortgage lender, you called one place. a problem with a credit card company, you call somebody else. it meant there were a lot of people who were responsible, but that meant nobody was responsible. and we changed that. we cut the bureaucracy and put one consumer watchdog in charge with just one job -- looking out for regular people in the financial business. this is an idea i got from elizabeth warren, who i first met years ago. back then, -- this was long before the financial crisis -- elizabeth was sounding the alarm on predatory lending and the financial pressures on middle- class families. in the years since, she has become perhaps the leading voice in our country on behalf of consumers, and let's face it -- she has done it while facing
some very tough opposition and drawing a fair amount of heat. fortunately, she is very tough. that is why i asked elizabeth warren to set up this new bureau. over the past year, she has done an extraordinary job. the agency is already starting to do a bunch of things that will be important for consumers -- making sure loan contracts and credit card terms are simpler and written in plain english. already, thanks to the leadership of the bureau, we are seeing men and women in uniform who are getting more protections against fraud and deception when it comes to financial practices. and as part of her charge, i asked elizabeth to find the best possible choice for director of the bureau. that is who we found in richard cordray. he was one of the first people that elizabeth recruited, and he held stand at the bureau's enforcement division over the past six months. i should also point out that he took the job, which meant being
away from his wife and 12-year- old twins in ohio because he believed so deeply in the mission of the bureau. prior to this, as ohio's attorney general, he helped recover billions of dollars in things like pension funds on behalf of retirees, and stepped up the state's efforts against unscrupulous lending practices. he has also served as ohio's treasurer and successfully work with people across the ideological spectrum -- democrats and republicans, banks and consumer advocates. last but not least, back in the 1980's, richard was also a five- time "jeopardy!" champion and semifinalist in the tournament of champions. not too shabby here that is why all this answers at his confirmation hearings will be in the form of a question. that's a joke. [laughter]
i am proud to nominate richard cordray to this post. we have recently been reminded why this job will be so important. there is an army of lobbyists and lawyers right now working to water down the protections and reforms that we have had. they have already spent tens of millions of dollars this year to try to weaken the law's designed to protect consumers. and they've got allies in congress who are trying to undo the progress we have made. we are not going to let that happen. the fact is the financial crisis and recession were not the result of normal economic cycles or just a run of bad luck. they were abused, and there was a lack of smart regulation. so we are not just going to shrug our shoulders and hope that does not happen again. we are not going to go back to the status quo were consumers could not count on getting protections that they deserve. we're not going back to a time when our economy was vulnerable
to a massive financial crisis. that is why reform matters. that is why this bureau matters. i will fight any efforts to repeal or undermine the important changes we have had, and we are going to stand up this bureau and make sure it is doing the right thing for middle-class families all across the country. middle-class families cannot afford lawyers from blue-chip law firms. they cannot afford to hire a lobbyist to look out for their interests, but they deserve to be treated honestly. they deserve a basic measure of protection against abuse. they should not have to need a corporate lawyer in order to be able to read something they are signing to take out a mortgage or get a credit card. that ought to be able to make informed decisions and have confidence that they are not being swindled, and that is what this consumer bureau will achieve. i look forward to working with richard cordray as this bureau stands up on behalf of consumers
all across the country. i want to thank both elizabeth and tim geithner for the extraordinary work they have done over at treasury to make sure that a year after we passed this law, it is already having an impact, and it is going to have impacts for years to come. thank you very much, and congratulations, richard. >> tomorrow morning, news corp.
chairman and ceo rupert murdoch will appear before a british parliamentary committee. he is expected to answer questions about phone hacking by "news of the world" and other news corp. companies. his son, the chairman and chief executive of news corp. international, and the former "news of the world" editor are expected to appear, and we will bring that to you on our companion network, c-span3. >> have you ever visited the library of congress? over 2 million people have, and now this is your chance to tour the world's largest library. tonight, join c-span for a rare glimpse inside the library of congress. we will take you into the great hall and explore the main reading room. you will find unique books and special collections, including the original books from thomas jefferson's personal collection, and see how the library is using modern technology to discover hidden secrets and preserve its holdings for future generations.
join us for "the library of congress he can -- library of congress." >> tonight, the sec -- fcc commissioner on their efforts to begin cracking down on unauthorized charges on consumers' phone bills. tonight on "the communicators." >> with titles like slander, godless, guilty, and her latest , ann coulter has something to say. sunday, your chance to talk to the best-selling author. three hours, starting at noon eastern on c-span2. >> the house is going to be returning now for votes on two measures. a vote on approving the journal of the previous day and a vote on how church pensions
investments are run. we will have live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span. just a note -- according to the associated press, president obama says the two sides are making progress on talks aimed at clearing the way for an increase in the debt limit. we should see a bill on the house floor tomorrow. the white house is threatening a veto of that plan, backed by the tea party, that the government borrow another $2.40 trillion as congress adopts the constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. the house speaker is calling that threat unfortunate, and he says that he shares -- it shows what he calls obama's unwillingness. votes will be taken in the following order. the motion to suspend on h.r. 33 and approval of the journal if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a five-minute vote.
the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 33 as amy end -- amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 81, h.r. 33, a bill to amend the securities act of 1933, to specify when certain securities issued in connection with church plans are treated as exempted securities for purposes of that act. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 310 and nays are one. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, unfinished business is the question on agreeing on to the speaker's journal. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the yeas have it. >> mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. blumenauer of oregon for today and for the balance of the week, ms. mccollum of minnesota for today, mr. ellison of minnesota for today, mr. wu of oregon for today, mrs. wilson of florida for today, mr. bishop of new york for today. the speaker pro tempore: werks, the request ares -- the requests are -- without objection, the requests are granted. the chair will entertain one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition?
without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise tonight to mark the anniversary of the attack on the amia jewish community center in bune he is arizona, argentina, on july 18, 1994, the irana regime through the coordinated efforts of its embassy and extremist proxy, hezbollah, committed one of the deadliest attacks of anti-semitism in the western hemisphere by killing 85 men, women and children and injuring over 300 innocent bystanders. 17 years later, mr. speaker, the regime has yet to answer for its role in the attack. its statement this weekend was nothing more than a desperate
p.r. attempt to manipulate the headlines in advance of today's sad anniversary. and so as we mark the 17th anniversary of this horrible attack and honor the victims and the survivors of that day, we must recommit ourselves to holding the iranian regime accountable for the attack and for the threat that it continues to pose to u.s. regional and global security. i thank the chair and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house is not in order. please take your conversations off the floor. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. flying in today our plane was delayed, didn't have the
opportunity to advance my support for h.r. 33, the church plan investment clarification act of 2011. and i want to acknowledge the sponsorship of congresswoman biggert and indicate that under current law thousands of church pension plans are denied participation in collective trusts, rendering them unable to pull their assets or reap the benefits of buying power. many churches experience difficulties and encourage expense when is diversifying pension plans. our chunches, our houses of worship provide invaluable service and many of those in my own community, the new light christian church, st. john missionary baptist church and many others work throughout our community, we are blessed to have lakewood church in our community as well that works very hard, a church leadership that i've known for many, many years. so this bill has been supported by the church alliance, the ymca
retirement fund, the church pension group and others and i thank my friend from illinois as i said, church does missionary work, their workers need to have the ability to have their pension and i close by saying there are those suffering in kenya, they are dying, so the malians who left because of the devastation of the draw the and i know our faith community wants us to do something about it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to remember a great leader from the state of arkansas, mr. stanley reid. stanley reid was prematurely taken away from us last friday but his legacy will live on. he was from mary anna and lee county but his influence was throughout the entire state of arkansas. he served as the president of the arkansas farm bureau and worked for the agriculture community, leading several initiatives to advance agriculture. for 10 years he served on the board of trustees for the university of arkansas. he placed a great emphasis on the importance of education and
it can be seen through his work at the university. sanity zsh stanley was also an advocate for arkansas businesses. he served on the board of arkansas world trade center where he shared his vision for arkansas businesses to compete in the global economy. mr. crawford: stanley leaves behind his wife, and his children and three grandchildren. arkansas lost a great leader, advocate and ambassador last week but stanley reid's legacy will live on through the impact of his work. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. garamendi: madam speaker, later this week this house will take up the second coming, if you will, of the house republican budget, a budget designed to destroy medicare, basically to terminate it, for anyone that's 55 years or younger. a plan designed to put social security on a track to privatization, a plan designed
to take nearly $700 billion out of the medicaid program, basically to destroy those things that have held the fabric of america together. have no illusions about what this is all about. it's not just a constitutional amendment, it's not just cut and cap. it is really about destroying medicare, medicaid, programs that are essential for seniors. if you want to make a cut in something, why don't you take 1/3 of $1 trillion out of the war in afghanistan, which is what we're going to spend over the next four years? now there is a good cut that we ought to make. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roe: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize a true american hero, private first class joe immediate. private class meed was a member of mike company third battalion, 26th marines.
he died in vietnam when his battalion was fighting. while carrying a wounded comrade to a wounded helicopter, he stepped on a land mine and was killed. he was on a -- he was only 19 at the time. in recognition of his valor he was awarded the silver star. dwayne crawford, his former commanding officer who recently founded a scholarship in his officer, had these words to say about joe's actions. with total disregard for his own life, he continually exposed himself to danger by administering first aid to his wounded comrades. offering them comforting words and helping them to medivac helicopters. his courageous actions saved many lives. even though he lived on a -- only 19 years, the legacy joe left behind is truly remarkable. private first class meed exemplified the best of america. for this reason i ask you to join me in commemorating the life of this extraordinary marine. semper fi, and this is an honor for the 58,479 of our comrades
who died in vietnam. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. i have three simple words for president obama and congressional democrats. mr. fleming: cut, cap and balance. last week when our campaigner in chief held his news conference he asked for a plan. well, mr. president, cut, cap and balance is our plan. it's a plan that cuts federal spending immediately, puts in place enforceable spending caps and demands a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. this plan cuts total spending by $111 billion in 2012 and around 5ds.8 trillion over the next 10 years -- $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years while not increasing taxes one single
penny. we have too much debt because we spend too much, not because we haven't taxed you enough. mr. president, you asked for a plan and here it is. it's your turn to get serious and work with us to solve this problem. not against us. stop demagoguing this issue with cheap tactics, cheap scare tactics and politics because the american people are tired of it and deserve much better. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to let the american people know that the city of ringold, georgia, is open for business. i know that we all remember the tornadoses that ravaged much of the country in april. over 180 of these destructive storms were confirmed in just one day and the ninth congressional district of georgia was not spared.
mr. graves: some of the worst storm zadge in north georgia occurred in the small town of ringold. over 100 businesses, 500 homes were damaged or destroyed on april 27. this was a devastating moment to the local community and the local economy which relies heavily on travelers passing through on interstate 75. well, however, ringold is on the mend and ready to share some of that southern hospitality it's known so well for. nearly half of the damaged businesses have reopened, hopes -- homes are being rebuilt and the jobs are returning. while there is still much to be done, if you find yourself passing through jming on i- 5 -- georgia on i-75, take exit 348 for gas, a bite to eat or an overnight stay and enjoy the shops and the sites and the historic downtown and know that you're playing a part in helping this great and resilient community rebuild. thank you, madam speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise. >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> a few hours ago, the president issued a veto to cut, cap, and balance. while it's expected, it's disappointing. it's disappointing because it meets his demand that we on this side of the aisle meet his demand. it's disappointing because he doesn't have a plan himself. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle called the republican party the party of no, but this president has become the president of no. mr. huelskamp: the president doesn't know what he's for, but he knows what he's against. his opposition to cut, cap, and balance includes opposition to a balanced budget amendment he said it's not necessary and
lawmakers should simply do their jobs. it's ironic that a president who is so in favor of tying the hands of businessmen with regulations is so against tying the hands of government. the only restriction-free zone he wants is washington, d.c. cut, cap, and balance recognizes that washington's solutions have to be long-term and permanent. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. we have a president who likes to talk about polling numbers. the president seems to completely ignore one of his most important polling numbers that the american people have spoken too.
asking the congress of the united states to do exactly what americans around the kitchen tables are doing this evening. mr. tipton: figuring out a way to balance that budget, to be able to fill up that gas tank, to be able to put food on the table. the very thing that 49 of our states are doing on a regular basis. balancing their budget. today we have the president of the united states come out and say a balanced budget is unrealistic. no, mr. president, your approach sun realistic. we are on an unsustainable glide path, destroying the future for our children and grandchildren if we fail to get our fiscal house in order. now is the time. this is our opportunity. cut, cap, and balance. not cut and run, mr. president. this is our opportunity to set america straight, to be able to
get our people back to work and get america moving again. the speaker pro tempore: are there -- are there any other further requests for one-minute speeching? -- speeches? under the speaker's announced spoifl january 5, 2011, the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. franks: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, we are going to discuss tonight the cut, cap, and balance bill that will come before the body tomorrow morning. i just want to express some thoughts about how desperately important i believe this bill is for america. i've seen in the media oftentimes the bill diminished, sort of minimized.
madam speaker, i believe this is an opportunity that is very unusual for those of us in this body to have. where we can put this nation on a track to fiscal sanity and where we can truly do that thing we were sent here to do. madam speaker, let me begin by saying that all financial budgets will eventually balance. no individual, no family no business, and no government can indefinitely continue to spend more money than they take in without someone having to make up the difference. madam speaker, that includes the budget of the united states federal government. neither mr. obama, nor congressional democrats can repeal the laws of mathematics. the federal budget of the united states government will eventually balance, madam speaker. the question is whether the house of representatives, the united states senate, and the white house will work together to balance this budget ourselves by wise policy, or
national bankruptcy and financial ruin will do it for us. from the day barack obama walked into the white house, he has with breathtaking arrogance absolutely ignored economic and financial reality. it took america the first 216 years of its exist tones accumulate the debt that brauk bach -- barack obama has a cumulated in the short two and a half year -- has accumulated in the short two and a half year span of his presidency. he's increased the federal debt by nearly $4 trillion. just to put that nearly $4 trillion in new debt into perspective, let me put it this way. if all of a sudden a wave of responsibility swept through this chamber and we stopped all deficit spending and began to pay instaalments of $1 million every day to pay down the nearly $4 trillion debt that
barack obama has created in just two and a half years, it would take us more than 10,000 years to pay it off. and that's if we didn't have to pay one time in interest, madam speaker. but you see, we are not paying off mr. obama's debt down at one more $1 million per day. we're going deeper into debt, more than 4,000 times that $1 million a day, every day, under obama's -- mr. obama's own submitted budget and deficit projection. let me say that again if we paid down the debt, $1 million a day, it would, the debt that mr. obama has accumulated in his two and a half year presidency, it would take us 10,000 years to do it. but we are not doing that. we are not doing that, madam speaker. we are going deeper into debt, 4,000 times that much every day. almost $4 billion per day.
and then when speaking of the effort to reduce the deficit, the president has the human beingries to tell conservative republicans to take a balanced approach and to eat our peas. madam speaker, there's anything more catastrophically out of balance in our federal budget it's the arrogance to competency ratio in this white house. we have tried mr. obama's way. we have far too long been testing democrat economics 101. the idea that we have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt. when it comes to balancing the budget, president obama and the lib rah immediate -- liberal media suggest that republicans are not willing to address revenue.
just because we aren't willing to have job-killing tax cuts, doesn't mean we're not willing to increase revenue. history tells us the best way to increase revenue is to get out of the way and allow the private sector to increase the number and quality of jobs for the american people. this has historically and always increased productivity and the tax base in this amazing nation. yet the president is willing to ignore that history and the reality of america's amazing economic engine an kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by raising taxes. madam speaker, that's like saying that putting additional weight on the back of a racehorse will help him win more races. you will recall that the democrats when they had control of congress raised the debt limit six times. i so clearly remember the surreal spectacle at the time of senate -- of then-majority
leader of the house steny hoyer leading the democrat caucus in a rousing, standing ovation after the debt limb was raised by $2 trillion in 2010. we have watched as president obama ran up a trillion-dollar deficit for the first time in history, break that record the next year and then say we would have $1 trillion-plus deficits for, quote, years to come. we have watch as mr. obama and the squad mrgs said if we would just allow them to spend another $800 billion on their stimulus package, the economy would rebound and unemployment would never go beyond 8%. the american people have awakened and they're tired of democrats telling them two plus two equals 13. as we find ourselves facing the prospect of raising the debt limit yet again, republicans said the only way to consent to
raidsing the debt ceiling is to cut spending the same amount as we raise the debt ceiling and give the people and state of this nation to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the constitution to put this country back on the track of fiscal sanity once again, madam speaker. now i know that mr. obama and the democrats have falsely said the balanced budget amendment is just a republican plan to destroy social security and medicare. but the truth is that the bill we'll be voting on tomorrow does not cut social security. it does not cut medicare and does not cut the compensation to our men and women in uniform by one dime. but the balanced budget amendment does give us an honest chance of reforming and saving those programs and our country from bankruptcy in the future. mr. obama and the democrats have constantly said we immediate to take a, quote, balanced approach and include
increased taxes in the equation. i've already said, madam speaker, increasing the rate of taxes will decrease the productivity of the nation -- of this nation and will ultimately decrease the revenue coming into the government. it is the economic equivalent of mixing dirt and ice cream. it's a poor recipe to embrace in the name of balance. madam speaker, the truly balanced approach to this problem is a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. by passing this cut, cap, and balance bill, along with the balanced budget amendment, we have a rare opportunity, and it's one that may never come again, madam speaker, of doing something truly historic that will save this nation and its people from economic ruin. now if the president and democrats will help us do this, together we can restore hope and confidence in capital markets inside the united states and really all over the world. because those markets will see that in the long run, america
is going to make it. that may take six or seven years to fully ratify the constitutional amendment once it's sent to the states but we owe it to the states and the people to give them this chance to save their nation. in the meantime, we can work hard here to expand this economy and balance this budget we work with here every year so when the amendment is ratified we will be ready to go forward as a nation and embrace the greatest days we have ever seen. however, madam speaker, the democrats and president are not willing to give america and the american people this chance by helping republicans pass a balanced budget amendment in this congress the resulting consequences will be theirs alone. and i believe the people will hold them accountable for whatever financial disaster may follow. madam speaker, long ago, thomas jefferson said, i wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to the constitution. i would be willing to depend on
that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its constitution. i mean, an additional article, taking from the federal government, the power of borrowing. madam speaker, it turns out thomas jefferson was right. the vast majority of the time. we have been those who have seen the best of some of the principal -- principles he espoused so long ago. how i wish his contemporaries had listened to him about the balanced budget amendment but in this moment in history, america may get a second chance, madam speaker. we may not get it again. i don't often quote shakespeare, but long ago, he wrote in a play, this quote that i think applies to us today. he said, there's a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. but omitted, all the voyage of their lives is bound in
shallows and in miseries. upon such a full sea we now find ourselves afloat and we must take the current when it serves, or lose our venture. in this time of crisis, we are also standing in a place where the tide is high. and the opportunity is real for us to do something that will truly turn things around for this nation. madam speaker, this is not the democrat congress of last year that gave a standing ovation to a $2 trillion increase in our debt limit. this is the congress that was sent here by the american people to turn things around an that starts by drawing the line on spending and saying, thus far, and no further. and passing a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. by the grace of god that's what we're going to do and with that i would like to yield to the gentleman from indiana for such time as he may consume. >> i thank my colleague from
arizona for his learned words and eloquent words, quoting, madam speaker, shakespeare. i'll begin by quoting yogi beara, that great fountain of which the, wisdom and great american common sense. he said that when you come to a fork in the road, take it. well, we find ourselves as americans right now certainly in a fork in the road, a fork in the road as a nation. mr. young: either we must act boldly or some would say we face nnl armageddon. unemployment's at 9.8%. investment is down, hire something sluggish, the american people are anxious about where they're going to find jobs, where they're going to send their kids to school. people in southern indiana ask me all the time what they're going to do as we fall fith further into the financial abyss. our national debt's over $14 trillion and growing. we know we're in this mess not because the american people are taxed too little, we're in this
mess because washington spends too darn much. and we want to address that. so as the president stands at this fork in the road, having no plan and refusing to lead, we know that we here in congress must lead. we must act, we must, as we say in the united states marine corps, we must have a bias for our action. well, and that's why we put forth this cut, cap and balance act of 2011. it's a responsible action, a briefly -- i'll briefly outline its finer points. first, it cuts total spending by $111 in fiss it -- billion in fiscal year 2012 no changes to social security, no changes to medicare, no changes to veterans benefits. considering the size and scope of the massive debt crisis we face in this country, it proposes a very modest cut of $111 billion next year. certainly a manageable down payment as we work to address this debt we face. it caps total federal spending
in the future as a proportion of our economy. that is the cap component of this cut, cap and balance plan. bringing down by the end of the decade our federal spending to less than 20% as a proportion of our economy. that's the post world war ii average. very sensible, very responsible. and then finally it balances our budget. it does so through a balanced budget amendment that will come up for a vote later, subject to the normal supermajority requirements in each house of congress. this works in 49 of the 50 states across this great nation, it will work here in washington too. if we have the courage to pass it. the cut, cap and balance plan will restore confidence, it will restore confidence in investors around this world. people who are right now eye balling this body, wondering whether or not we're going to pass a bold plan to address our financial situation and therefore maintain our high triple-a credit rating. it will restore confidence in
those who create jobs, the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the investors that cross the fruited plains who people rely on for their family incomes, we'll show them that we understand washington has a problem and we are prepared to address it in a very specific way. finally this will calm down this will restore confidence among those we represent. yeah, we have a deficit in washington and it's not just a financial deficit, it is a leadership deficit. we need to show the american people we understand our federal government must balance its books, just like american families and businesses are making hard decisions and balancing their own books during this difficult time. the president stands at this fork in the road, no plan, no action, no leadership and he characteristically refuses to choose a path. we have laid out a path, the path is one of leadership, the path is one of choosing. i believe that to lead is to choose, we must choose. i encouraged members of this body, my esteemed colleagues, to
choose the cut, cap and balance act of 2011. i yield back any time. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i will -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman spend for a moment? mr. franks: i was going to yield to mr. woodal for purposes of filing a rule. mr. woodall: i thank my friend for yielding, madam speaker. pleased to be a part of this and report that the rules committee has considered the cut, cap, balance act and i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 355, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2560, to cut, cap and balance the federal budget. mr. woodall: i thank my friend. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.
the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: thank you, madam speaker. i would now yield to the gentleman from georgia for such time as he may consume. >> thank i thank the gentleman from arizona and my friend from indiana. i mean this to me, tomorrow, where we are today is a monumental time in the history of this nation. when we think about the decisions and the debate, the discussions, the rhetoric of tomorrow, it will be amazing to see who falls on which side. mr. graves: because it's truly a choice. it is a decision and we've heard that this is going to be a time of choosing. tomorrow is the day. we've had reckless debt and deficit for years now and it's not a necessarily democrat problem because republicans have also been a part of the problem. we've seen both parties guilty in this time of fiscal nonsense or recklessness of washington spending but it's come to an end and we have an opportunity before us that i think is going to be incredible. so tomorrow as the debate begins
i hope the nation is watching. i hope the nation is listening, i hope the nation is witnessing their members of congress, whom they voted for, whom was sent to office to represent them, watching to see how they will cast their vote. of course the president's already shown his cards. we know how he's going to cast his vote. i'd love to see it. the house pass it to the senate, the senate move it to the president and him look the american people square in the eyes and say he is not for balancing the budget. he is not for cutting spending, he is not for capping the federal government. how defiant would that be to the american people? his quote today was, we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. mr. president, the constitution is there to protect the american people from their government. what better opportunity to protect them from the reckless spending of washington than a balanced budget amendment sent to the states? we do need the constitution to tell us how to balance the
budget because apparently this place can't do it on their own. for year after year after year it's been out of balance, debt limits increase, spending out of control and yet we have a president who now without a plan but a framework we hear only through press conference, press releases and spokespersons, a framework, is that a plan? no, the not a plan. we hear the senate has a plan. it's plan b though. why? because plan a comes before the house tomorrow. plan a is to cut the federal government's spending now, it is to cap the federal government size in the future and it is to balance the budget forevermore. that is what america is seeking right now. so the time truly is for choosing and the question before us tomorrow, as we all will watch the board light up, everyone will put in their voting card, they're really casting a couple of different decisions tomorrow. it's not just cut, cap and balance. but it is what is our vision for america. what will it be? what will america be in the
future? that is the other question. i believe that those who cast that aye button tomorrow, the green button, they are casting their decision for a prosperous future for this country. a future in which we do live within our means, a future that ensures prosperity for the next generation but then there are those that will cast a no vote, they'll cast the red vote, they will say, no, the status quo is acceptable, out of control spending, yeah, we'll get through it. the time will come, we will get by. compromise is necessary. that will be the no vote tomorrow. tomorrow's vote's so big. it is big. and i thank the gentleman from arizona for leading this hour tonight because it's a precursor to the debate tomorrow, a debate that will be grand, i believe out of all the votes i've cast in my short time, just over a year here, tomorrow's might be one of the most important votes i cast. and stand before this house tonight, madam speaker, before
you to say i'll be casting that green vote for that prosperous future of this great nation we have. to restore it, reclaim that liberty that we all know is so great and grand and i look forward to joining many of commy colleagues, such as the gentleman from arizona, thank you. mr. franks: i thank the distinguished gentleman and now recognize the distinguished gentleman from california, congressman bilbray. mr. bilirakis: thank you. i'm honored to speak to the oord -- mr. bilbray: thank you. i'm honored to speak to my friend from arizona. he made a nautical revert reference to the facts of life when tides change and as a child of the ocean i appreciate that, sir. but let me just say, we've all got to understand how we got where we are today. the fact is in 2006 the american people were fed up with the republicans spending too much. not because we had raised taxes or cut taxes, but they were fed
up with our spending habits. four years later the same voters threw out the democrats, not because they hadn't raised taxes but because they had expanded expenditures extraordinarily and so i think if there's one indication we ought to understand, when you navigate on the ocean, you learn, know which way the waives are coming, which way the end -- waves are coming, which way the wind is coming and you learn from your experience that there are some things that you don't want to fine fight and one is the will of the american people. and as we look around the world, everybody celebrates the arab spring are where the average person in arab countries are standing up and not just saying no, but hell not. we're going to stand up and say, we had enough. what's happening has happened in america, too. the fact is that the average citizens in america just like around the world now can communicate through the internet. and no big government, big
operation, big cartel can keep them from communicating. and so there is an energy let loose, not just in arabic countries but here in the united states that says, america, we've got live within our budget, you're not going to tax us anymore. and, madam speaker, i think we've got to remember that the american people saw that coming. they saw starting in 2006 a spending spree that went off -- in 2008, i mean, and went off for two years of extraordinary spending. and actually even before the new administration went in there, the american people saw that there was going to be spending begun by republicans or democrats that were going to be used as an excuse to raise taxes. and that's why, they say we're taxed enough already. so we need to get down to the fact that we're talking about where is the credibility of this government? it has to be reinstalled by the fact that we can be trusted with the budget, not trusted with
raising taxes, but trusted with spending control. that is going to be the real crisis. notable economist art laffer just said recently that he almost compares what's being proposed by some in washington to somebody, a couple going out to monaco and then to itsly and then to france and running up a big bill, coming back to their boss and saying, by the way, boss, we spent all this money, we need a pay raise, how about this? why don't you split half of the expense of my vacation with me, you pay half of it and i'll pay half of it. that kind of logic doesn't sell when you're facing with your employer. it darn well doesn't wash when you're facing off with your employer here in washington and that's the american taxpayer. i think we need to recognize that. so in all fairness, there are things we can do, madam speaker, to stimulate the economy without borrowing money from china. we can bring back almost $2
trillion of american money to create american jobs here on american soil. congress and president just have to agree to do it. the money is out there, it's not beinged, it's not coming back if we don't eliminate the 35% penalty for it coming back and here's a place where we can invest in research and development like the president wants, construction, we it go into manufacturing expansions, things that the president and the democrats in the past have borrowed money from china to create that kind of stimulus to the economy, we can create that stimulus to the economy, create jobs and help the balance -- to balance the budget but first we got to understand that taxing people to death is not the answer to prosperity. the answer for this family called the american nation is just like every other family, living within their means, understanding your limits and spending within those limits. i'm not asking people to pay for your extravagance. so as we face a lot of
challenges i just got to say to everybody, you can look at what's going on in california today. madam speaker, there is a state that is controlled by the left, has driven business out of the state, the money in now has run out and not only did citizens lose jobs when those businesses left, but now because those jobs are not there to pay the taxes, the citizens of california who have depended and expected to have their health care paid by the state now are being told they have to expect less because there's no more money to pay for those social benefits that they were promised, promised in such inappropriate ways. so as we destroyed businesses, we destroy jobs, and even those who are on public assistance will be affected by the kind of destructive behavior. and the difference between raising a debt limit today and in the past is that in the past all you had to do was raise the
debt limit to have groups like moodie be able to talk about addressing this issue. fine, that's enough. now the people that are rating our dollar is saying, can't just raise the limit, you've got to show us that you are serious about controlling the spending so now this congress has to do something that no congress has been forced to in the past, we have to address the issue of the debt limit but address the issue of the debt at the same time. i yield back to the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman for his wise and well-placed words. madam speaker, my friends on the left would have us believe if we have a balanced budget in this country, that somehow that will crush all the critical programmers in most vulnerable in our society. madam speaker that just simply is not true. there is very little i know of that would cause this
government to flourish economically than for the nation itself to flourish economically. oftentimes, we forget that the confidence in the system has a great deal to do with the debt in the system. we have a lot of confidence in the free market but there's something we believe in even more, an element called trust. if those who are the producers of our society if those who are the jobmakers of our society, if those who are the captains of industry and productivity, all the way down to the person who makes minimum wage if they believe that they can trust the environment they're in, if they do what they believe is right, that their contracts will be honored, that their wages will be paid that government will make sure they are treated justly and fairly, then they
will continue to be productive and they will continue to do everything they can collectively to make this country the ongoing greatest nation in the history of the world. madam chairman, when that trust is broken, when government sometimes sets aside its own rules and prints money and deficit spends and completely ignores the important things it's supposed to do to keep trust with the people it represents, oftentimes those who are the producers, whose who are -- those who are the entrepreneurs, those are the ones who try to make a difference in this world, they become discouraged and take a step back. because they can't trust their government. i would tell you, madam chairwoman, that's one of the biggest problems we face today. people have watched the government continue to spend out of control and watched us take advantage of inflation, watched the government of this
nation and its leaders use deficit spending to a degree that diminishes their way of life and watched us do bailouts and all those kinds of things and i would tell you, madam speaker, that they're getting tired. the good news is this, the good news is the people have awakened. nothing encourages me more than that people are finally starting to watch this country. they know a balanced budget amendment will do something that very few other economic policies have ever done, that it will restore the confidence and trust in this government that we will begin to have to live within our means and if we want greater revenue to come through these doors, we will do everything we can to see business flourish and that we will put aside this notion, of government being that great fiction at which everyone
endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else, we'll understand that the issue is product incompetent -- productivity and have a tax base to support the government and allow us to do for the most helpless in our society. with that, madam speaker, i want to yield again to the gentleman from california. mr. bilbray: thank you, i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, we are really at a threshold of making a decision of, are we willing to do what it takes to prove to the american people that this republican form of government actually can function and address the long-term needs of america. we're at a point where we have to be able to show not just the american people but people around the world that our republican experiment, the republic we call the united states of america, can function not just for 200 years, but for
hundreds of years on top of that because we can make the tough decisions, not just to go to war, not just to respond to disaster. but to take care of our financial well being and that the elected representatives cannot use tax money to buy votes and cannot be bullied by scare tactics away from doing what is essential for the future of this country. that is a real test. remember, when we talk about washington taking money, and i think this is one thing republicans and democrats don't talk enough about, i used to be a mayor, i was a mayor in my 20's. we forget that this is not government, we say that too much, it's not government we're talking about, it's federal government. this is totally different than our your city council, this is totally different than your county commissioners or supervisors.
this is not going to your school board. there if they tax you, you can go to their meetings and you can stand up and tell the mayor what you think abhis spending habit the school board member is required by law to hear your opinion. but when your money is taken to washington you don't have the right to even stand up and speak to the congress. you try to stand up without getting permission, they've got curt to drag you out. there's a big difference between sending your money to city hall and sending your money to washington, d.c. one, you're vested with rights to participate in how that money is spent. here in washington, you're disenfranchised except for one person, your congressman. and that person darn well is diluted and cannot speak for you personally but has to represent you as part of a
group. so when we talk about washington taking money, remember, you've got school boards, you've got counties, you've got cities, but washington is not just taking it away from the business community. it's taking it away from the local government agencies that provide the baseline services that are essential to all of us. we keep talking about washington is the great safety net. excuse me. your cities and counties are the safety net of civilized services that get into. federal government, anyone who lives in washington, d.c. understands that, that the local government is where the essential services are going and when we take money out of a community and bring it to washington, we're depriving the same school board members and county commissioners the services that make every day possible for our zens. when we do that, even more importantly, we deprive the individual, the ability to participate in how hair
hard-earned money is spent. so we can take as little as humanly possible to execute the responsibilities and mandates of the united states constitution. maybe if we looked around a little more and focus on the responsibilities that the constitution gives us, washington, d.c., as opposed to mayors, councilmembers and state legislators, maybe if we didn't try to be everything to everyone, maybe we wouldn't be so greedy at taking so much from the citizens of the united states. so i think that that is one of those items we've got to constantly try to remember and i say this to my democratic colleagues and my republican colleagues, when we're talking about the federal budget, we're not talking about government, we're talking about federal government taking these funds. i think those are essential issues. i yield back. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman from california. i yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> i want to thank the
gentleman for taking the time to talk about the importance of cut, cap, and balance. this is a historic vote we'll be taking in the house tomorrow and i think it's critical that we have a solution that will get our fiscal house is in order. very few people are negotiating, they're very short on having specific plans. i haven't seen anything in writing, in fact. i'd love to see something in writing, do a financial analysis of one of the other plans. mr. gardner: this is a way forward that many of us are looking forward to voting tomorrow here on the floor and as you've been describing it, representative franks and mr. bilbray of california, the elements of this plan are wonderful for the fiscal health and the financial future and
prosperity of our country. if we don't do something that is the prospect that we have before us. mr. lamborn: i look forward to cutting next year's budget by a manageable amount, sure there will be some people who say don't cut this, i'd rather you cut something else, but we have to live within our means so we're cutting next year's budget, we're also capping the next 10 years so that instead of the unsustainable 24% or 25% of our gross domestic product for the federal government it's going to be brought down to about 20% or under 20%. that is important for living within our means. historically, post-world war ii, the federal government revenues have been about 18%. nowhere near the 24% or 25%.
even 19.9% that this calls for after year six or seven is still higher than our revenue bus on a glide path, it's on a trajectory that gets toward balance. the best thing of all is a balanced budget amendment. this is something that the minute -- should it pass the house and senate and go to the states and should the three-quarters of the states, 38 of them, pass it in their own legislatures, at that moment we'll live under a balanced budget. whether that's four years or eight years or 12 years or whatever long that would take. this has a short-term, medium term and long-term solution. if others say, i'm going to vote against that. i'd like to see their plan. the status quo is unacceptable. we are headed toward a greece-type default and bankruptcy and we just simply
do not need to do that. we have to reduce our spending. representative franks, you know this as well as i do. i have watched and respect your voting record. you're one for holding the line on ex-trainus spending. that's what it to -- extraneous spending. that's what it takes. every family has to do it. every business has to do it. every individual has to do it. when your income is not as much as your outgo, you have to reprioritize. you have to stop spending as much as you want to and you have to live within your means. everyone else, every other government in your country has to do that. cities, states, county, they all have to do that. the federal government is for some reason the only one exempt from these normal laws of fiscal -- the fiscal laws of nature. we had this historic vote -- have this historic vote
tomorrow, i'm looking forward to cut, cap, and balance our nation's finances. representative franks, i'm glad you're sponsoring this time so we can discuss this important issue and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. franks: i thank the distinguished gentleman. madam speaker, may i inquire as to the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 20 minutes remaining. mr. franks: with that, i yield to the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. mr. young: i know the president said we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. he was referring to the debt limit debate and our insistence we get some serious spending cuts in conjunction with that debt limit and come up with a plan to get our debt under control in the longer term. the response -- my response to